Are We Getting A New Cannondale Supersix?

Discuss light weight issues concerning road bikes & parts.
TobinHatesYou
Posts: 3622
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2017 12:02 pm

by TobinHatesYou

robeambro wrote:
Fri Jun 14, 2019 10:01 am
Seems like a very tall and beefy headtube.

The depth of the HT is part aerodynamics and part a front channel to run the cables/hoses through.

As for the HT length, seems consistent with the Tarmac SL6 and Teammachine in 56cm. The Teammachine doesn't look it thanks to some clever lines and paint.

by Weenie


robeambro
Posts: 536
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2018 6:21 pm

by robeambro

TobinHatesYou wrote:
Fri Jun 14, 2019 10:07 am
robeambro wrote:
Fri Jun 14, 2019 10:01 am
Seems like a very tall and beefy headtube.

The depth of the HT is part aerodynamics and part a front channel to run the cables/hoses through.

As for the HT length, seems consistent with the Tarmac SL6 and Teammachine in 56cm. The Teammachine doesn't look it thanks to some clever lines and paint.
Yep I'm sure it's also partly an optical illusion due to the spacers - on this note, why on Earth would they take such commercial photos with headset spacers on? Is it cause they're non-removable or something?

Wookski
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2016 5:51 am

by Wookski

Also why take pics of such a large frame- a 52 would be much more aesthetically pleasing. Big bikes always look rubbish.

Alexandrumarian
Posts: 365
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2016 6:34 pm
Location: Romania

by Alexandrumarian

Wookski wrote:
Fri Jun 14, 2019 10:56 am
Also why take pics of such a large frame- a 52 would be much more aesthetically pleasing. Big bikes always look rubbish.
Funny i always think the opposite. Small frames seem to have huge wheels :)

Wookski
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2016 5:51 am

by Wookski

Alexandrumarian wrote:
Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:01 am
Wookski wrote:
Fri Jun 14, 2019 10:56 am
Also why take pics of such a large frame- a 52 would be much more aesthetically pleasing. Big bikes always look rubbish.
Funny i always think the opposite. Small frames seem to have huge wheels :)
Yes but also huge cranks!

dastott
Posts: 174
Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2015 12:35 pm

by dastott

Ideally 54 or 56 size for photos. Looks much better in the EF team colours.

User avatar
C36
Posts: 583
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2017 3:24 am

by C36

Indeed, had the same with the early system six early shots. A tower of spacers and long housings.
Never understand why no more attention is put on those details (when the tires labels are for example alined)

Edit... rebooked at the picture and it’s really not that bad. That’s reasonable amount of spacers. Then yes potentially a smaller size would look a bit better.

Envoyé de mon iPhone en utilisant Tapatalk

moonoi
Posts: 553
Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2015 3:04 pm
Location: Earth

by moonoi

I quite like it, but it does look very very similar to a Chapter 2 Tere Disc, just with better cable integration.

Probably why I like it :)

Bluechip
Posts: 106
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2015 2:04 am

by Bluechip

Wookski wrote:
Fri Jun 14, 2019 10:56 am
Also why take pics of such a large frame- a 52 would be much more aesthetically pleasing. Big bikes always look rubbish.
Said by someone who rides a 52cm. I personally think a 56cm looks best. :D

User avatar
Dan Gerous
Posts: 931
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 6:28 pm

by Dan Gerous

Come on guys be real, everyone knows 54's look the best, perfect balance of the wheels vs the frame, not too short wheelbase, not too long... *

As far as I remember, Cannondale always pictured 56's with biggish 25mm headset cone spacers with normal stems so this doesn't look too bad. I think the new Evo with it's lightly sloping top tube look nicer in bigger sizes than the more horizontal top tube frames where the front triangles kind of visually split the bike in two halves instead of one flowing machine. But 54 look better.



* Says the guy on 54

Wookski
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2016 5:51 am

by Wookski

Bluechip wrote:
Fri Jun 14, 2019 12:43 pm
Wookski wrote:
Fri Jun 14, 2019 10:56 am
Also why take pics of such a large frame- a 52 would be much more aesthetically pleasing. Big bikes always look rubbish.
Said by someone who rides a 52cm. I personally think a 56cm looks best. :D
You got me :beerchug:

User avatar
Kjetil
Posts: 1858
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2011 1:17 pm
Location: Hamar, Norway
Contact:

by Kjetil

Looking at some pictures I cannot share the 58 looks good ridden.

Horizontal integrated stems make for a stacked look that I need to get used to, more so than dropped seat stays.
Bianchi-Campagnolo
The Specialissima

Miles253
Posts: 132
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2014 9:32 am

by Miles253

Well as a tall guy, my bikes are always big. I can admit, they never look quite as nice.

That Evo isn't doing it for me, the paint is just so...meh. And the logo placement is just too subtle IMO
Rose Backroad | 9kg
Canyon CF SL | 7.5kg

https://www.findyourroad.co.uk/
Instagram: @miles_bc

User avatar
Dan Gerous
Posts: 931
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 6:28 pm

by Dan Gerous

A good day for Mike Woods to test if the new Evo fills up with water from that hole in front of the headtube when it rains! :mrgreen:
Screen Shot 2019-06-15 at 09.48.32.jpg

Gary71
Posts: 100
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 5:25 am
Location: Brisbane Australia

by Gary71

Another pic of the EF Bikes in last nights Dauphine - old at the front new at the back......., it's not growing on me :(

There is something about the headtube angle :noidea:
Attachments
Screen Shot 2019-06-16 at 1.04.45 pm.png

by Weenie


Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post